During the movement of aircraft and other large machinery, equipment, trucks and boats, the line of sight of tug operators is typically limited. As such, many individuals may be employed to help direct and warn tug operators of impending collisions. However, prior art devices and methods have been disadvantageous in adequately controlling these expensive and sometimes fatal mistakes. For instance, in the airline industry, aircraft, in the United States alone, are tugged from gates and hangers many times per day. In addition to the numerous on-the-job injuries that result due to tug related accidents, millions of dollars are lost each day when an aircraft inadvertently collides with other aircraft, service vehicles or buildings. Costly repairs, inspections, investigations, flight delays, lost revenues, lost passenger confidence and employee injuries make the avoidance of such collisions of utmost importance.
In the airline industry, wing walkers typically are positioned near the wings with flags or poles to direct and warn the tug operator of impending collisions. However, due to the noise and limited sight, it is often difficult for the tug operators to observe these wing walkers simultaneously and to quickly respond to any verbal or hand signals. Thus, numerous accidents have resulted from this method of collision avoidance.
Although there have been devices invented that assist the pilot in docking or parking a plane (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 4,249,159 to Stasko and U.S. Pat. No. 4,464,648 to Smith et al.), none are designed to, or serve the function of, preventing collisions while moving aircraft via tug vehicles.
It has been recognized for many years that flashing lights have the ability to draw attention more rapidly than a constantly emitted light. Recognizing this, others have provided collision avoidance systems utilizing flashing lights, triggered by various activation means, to draw the attention of surrounding drivers. It is often the case that standard incandescent lamps are utilized as the light-emitting source. Examples of such systems may be found by reference to U.S. Pat. No. 5,510,763 to Deckard et al. Such systems are disadvantageous in that the light is not bright enough to draw attention during daylight; don't flash rapidly enough; high failure rate relative to the number of flashes required. Sometimes the flashing light is hidden behind red or amber lenses or utilizes the preexisting red brake lights or amber hazard lights, reducing effectiveness by reducing overall brightness. Examples of such systems may be found by reference to U.S. Pat. No. 5,565,841 to Pandohie; U.S. Pat. No. 5,510,763 to Deckard et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,043,698 to Tabacchi; U.S. Pat. No. 5,017,904 to Browne et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,357,594 to Ehrlich et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,148,147 to Kobres; U.S. Pat. No. 5,461,362 to Echt; U.S. Pat. No. 5,387,898 to Yeheskel et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,345,218 to Woods et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,111,181 to Priesemuth; and, U.S. Pat. No. 5,017,904 to Browne et al.
It has been recognized that stroboscopic lighting, or strobes, may be utilized in vehicle safety systems. Because these lamps are brilliant, often 100,000 candles or more, they may be seen over bright sunlight. In addition, they may be set to flash rapidly, thereby naturally attracting the attention of the human eye and increasing the likelihood of detection by human peripheral vision. Furthermore, the rate of flashing and the intensity may be varied by design to optimize their signaling capability.
In recent years, the motor vehicle industry, departments of transportation, and various other public agencies have undertaken to incorporate stroboscopic lighting in their system specifications. For example, buses, four-way stop lights, and emergency response vehicles utilize strobe lights to aid in providing early warning of various emergency or dangerous conditions.
Thus, there is a clear advantage in utilizing stroboscopic light, appropriately triggered to indicate potentially dangerous situations.
It is readily apparent that an improved stroboscopic remote collision avoidance system easily adaptable to preexisting systems and having the capability to be triggered from a multitude of remote advantage points in the event of impending collision is needed to aid in preventing, or at least reducing, the incidence of accidental injuries to both persons and property of the type just described. It is, therefore, to the provision of such an improved that the present invention is directed.